SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JJ.

1. State has preferred these three Letters Patent Appeals to test the correctness and legality of judgment and order by learned Single Judge in the case of Sunil Kumar & Ors. V/s State of Bihar and Ors. bearing C.W.J.C. No. 14243 of 2004 allowed on 13.10.2006. Directly against that judgment is L.P.A. No. 234 of 2007 whereas the other two appeals arise out of later judgments by learned Single Judges adopting the view taken in the case of Sunil Kumar & Ors (supra).

2. The facts necessary for deciding the issue involved in these appeals lie within a narrow compass. The writ petitioners who are respondents in these appeals appeared in lllrd Graduate Level Recruitment Examination alongwith other candidates. On the basis of common combined competitive examination, appointments were made in different class-Ill Graduate Level Supervisory Posts in different departments of the state. The dispute relates to 16 categories of posts under different departments which at the time of recruitment and even thereafter, were treated as equal and carried same pay scale. Allotment was made to these posts not on the basis of merit-cum-choice but in a random manner because allotment and appointment to any of the 16 services had no adverse effect on anyone due to same pay scale.

3. As a result of recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee, w.e.f. 01.04.1981; ten of the services from the group of 16 were placed in higher pay scale of Rs 850-1360, while the remaining six were placed in a lower scale. The dispute went to Pay Anomaly Removal Committee which found the grievance of the six left out services to be genuine and, therefore, they also were granted the pay scale of Rs 850- 1360. Again, as a result of recommendation of Fifth Pay Revision Committee made on 15.12.89, but effective from 01.01.1986, for ten services the revised scale was of Rs 1600-2750 and for the remaining six, the recommendation was for Rs 1500-2750.

4. The employees adversely affected by the aforesaid decision and grant of lower pay scale challenged the decision of the State Government through a writ petition preferred by Nagendra Sahani & Ors. bearing C.W.J.C. No. 8419 of 1992 which was allowed by judgment and order dated 22.09.1993. Copy of that judgment is available in the records of several writ petitions including C.W.J.C. No. 14281 of 2004 out of which L.P.A. No. 234 of 2007 arises. For the sake of convenience, facts have been taken from the records of this case only.

5. On account of demand by the employees of the State Government for grant of Central Pay Scale, a Fitment Committee was constituted by the State Government on 02.01.1998. Its terms of reference are annexed as Annexure-R/3 to the counter affidavit in the Appeal. On behalf of the state two features of the terms of reference have been highlighted to support the submissions on behalf of the state. The terms of reference mention that a demand for Central Pay Scale was made by the employees of the State Government and on their demand, reference was made to the Fitment Committee for working out possible equivalence between the pay scale of state employees and the pay scales being given to central employees on account of recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission. The second aspect is that even those state employees who may be getting higher or lower pay scales should also be granted appropriate equivalent central pay scale. On the basis of report of the Fitment Committee dated 08.02.1999, the majority of 16 services, to be particular 14 of them were placed in the pay scale of Rs 5,000-8000 whereas the post of Co-operative Extension Officer in the Co-operative Department was placed in the scale of Rs 4500-7000 whereas post of Labour Inspector and Labour Officer was placed in a higher scale of 5500-9000. Subsequently, the post of Senior Auditor Grade-ll has also been admittedly placed in the higher scale of Rs 5500-9000 whereas the post of Co-operative Off